Vista team heads off iPod corruption with update

[aryayush]

Vista team heads off iPod corruption with update
By Jacqui Cheng | Published: May 08, 2007 - 06:26PM CT

The Windows Vista team has been working closely with Apple to "ensure a great experience in using Windows Vista with iTunes and the iPod." At least that's according to Nick White of the Windows Vista Team Blog. Why is he telling us this? Because the Vista Team has published an update for iPod-toting Vista users. The final one, that is.

The compatibility update is to address the problem of people's iPods becoming corrupt when using the "Safely Remove Hardware" icon in the Windows system tray. The update is for worldwide users, according to White, and is recommended for everyone who uses an iPod and Windows. Although the fix is being released today via the web site, it won't become available via Windows Update on your desktop until May 22.

Read more...

[iMav]

thanx arya .... this 1s helpful for me ... had to reboot eveytime i wanted to load songs ... damn y cant apple make softwares tht work on windows flawlessly

[aryayush]

I am sure every other application you were using with XP is working flawlessly with Vista. And when upgrading their operating system if Microsoft could not maintain compatibility with existing applications, it is the fault of the application developers.

... and then you say that you don't post flame bait...

[gxsaurav]

thanx arya .... this 1s helpful for me ... had to reboot eveytime i wanted to load songs ... damn y cant apple make softwares tht work on windows flawlessly

Obviously they can't, else they will be short of an Apple Ad.

(Buy a mac, cos our software doesn't works with Vista, now don't buy vista insted buy a new Mac to work on iPod.)

And actully, yeah. Backward compatibility is the biggest Advantage Vista has. Even Tally 2.3 works fine on Vista, hell even kundali from 2001 works fine here. If the application is not compatible with a new OS it is the developers responsibility to make it compatible

[iMav]

^^

Originally Posted by aryayush

And when upgrading their operating system if Microsoft could not maintain compatibility with existing applications

i thought that was another purpose of beta versions ... to let developers code their applications according to the new OS ... ya ur right lets stick to the topic

[aryayush]

I've heard hundreds of people complaining about applications not working properly with Vista. I installed an RSS feed reader and it was also being problematic.

Oh, and BTW, Apple ported Mac OS X to the Intel platform in 2006 and there is no native version of Office for Mac (or any other Microsoft software for the Mac) till date.

[sachin_kothari]

another mac v/s windows thread

[iMav]

^^we love it

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Originally Posted by aryayush

I've heard hundreds of people complaining about applications not working properly with Vista. I installed an RSS feed reader and it was also being problematic.

Oh, and BTW, Apple ported Mac OS X to the Intel platform in 2006 and there is no native version of Office for Mac (or any other Microsoft software for the Mac) till date.

a mac user talkin of Backward Compatibility , Mate when apple released Mac OS X it was not backward compatible with ANY mac app , u had to run Mac OS 9 in an emulator to run older apps .

[iMav]

hey arya be careful of what u say coz now we have direct access to the mac os x so we know the truth now

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Originally Posted by mAV3

hey arya be careful of what u say coz now we have direct access to the mac os x so we know the truth now

^^^ Well said mate

[gxsaurav]

Arya, ever tried right clicking on an application & go to properties->compatibility>Run in Windows XP SP2 compatibility?

I even tried running 3D Max using this method & it worked fine. (Crashed later on cos it was not able to find DirectX 9 libraries, which I installed after this & it worked fine).

As far as I know, there is no compatibility method like this in MacOS X. Panther apps were not directly compatible in Tiger & you had to wait for new versions.

no native version of Office for Mac

How complex is Office compared to QuickTime? Also, why release Office 2004 when they are already making office 2007 for Mac native to Mactel. Besides why do u want to use a MS product & still disrespect them? You want a native office suite then use NeoOffice which is based on the OpenOffice

[aryayush]

Originally Posted by Zeeshan Quireshi

a mac user talkin of Backward Compatibility , Mate when apple released Mac OS X it was not backward compatible with ANY mac app , u had to run Mac OS 9 in an emulator to run older apps .

Apple changed the entire architecture of the operating system and still devised a method of running Mac OS 9 application. Yes, they had to use an emulator, but they did it. It was amazing. The whole industry lauded the effort. You have no idea.

Even when they ported the OS to Intel, they made sure that developers could turn their applications into universal binaries with just the click of a button and they also made sure we could run older applications using the Rosetta translation. Mac OS X runs fine even on ten year old Macs.

This is called backward compatibility.

[iMav]

Originally Posted by aryayush

Apple changed the entire architecture of the operating system and still devised a method of running Mac OS 9 application. Yes, they had to use an emulator, but they did it. It was amazing. The whole industry lauded the effort. You have no idea.

Even when they ported the OS to Intel, they made sure that developers could turn their applications into universal binaries with just the click of a button and they also made sure we could run older applications using the Rosetta translation. Mac OS X runs fine even on ten year old Macs.

This is called backward compatibility.

blah blah ... blah ... u have no idea windows does n did the same

[gxsaurav]

Originally Posted by aryayush

Apple changed the entire architecture of the operating system and still devised a method of running Mac OS 9 application. Yes, they had to use an emulator, but they did it. It was amazing. The whole industry lauded the effort. You have no idea.

Running old applications in Emulator is amazing insted of providing backward compatibility in OS? Wow, must be possible only on a Mac which cannot be upgraded.

And you better read some documents from 2001, the whole industry mocked apple for not providing native backward compability. You needed a MacOS X license and a MacOS 9 license both in this case.

Mac OS X runs fine even on ten year old Macs.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
:rofl

10 years ago Mac had Power PC G2 & G3 Mac with ATI Rage graphics card with 8 MB Video RAM & 64 MB System RAM. Try running MacOS X 10.4 tiger on it.

Oh sorry, I forgot your hardware knowledge is 0

Even when they ported the OS to Intel, they made sure that developers could turn their applications into universal binaries with just the click of a button and they also made sure we could run older applications using the Rosetta translation.

One click, wow I wonder why didn't we saw Adobe Photoshop CS2 within a week then of shifting to Mactel. The whole architecture was changed which means a simple recompile will not work. 40% approx has to be re written.

Rosetta Application well, i guess you should try running something in rosetta then & see yourself how is the performance in it.

In windows, backward compatibility leads to either same performance or more performance (if the hardware is new). In Mac there is no backward compatibility & if there is it results in performance decrese.

[Desi-Tek.com]

even adobe macromedia dreamweaver mx 2004 is not compatible with vista i even faced problem with nero. u need to open nero by right clicking on it and selecting admin other wise it does not write cd though it has benn fixed in latest version of nero. But dreamweaver problem still exist. I used vist(t)a for 3 days than i returned back to xp

[shantanu]

Originally Posted by Desi-Tek.com

even adobe macromedia dreamweaver mx 2004 is not compatible with vista i even faced problem with nero. u need to open nero by right clicking on it and selecting admin other wise it does not write cd though it has benn fixed in latest version of nero. But dreamweaver problem still exist. I used vist(t)a for 3 days than i returned back to xp

Your problem is just not limited to usage , its the way you use the applications.

you can permanently fix a program to run as admin , and BTW nero 6 also installs on VISTA, and any other version . the problem with mero 7 is some DX9 files. whioch is fixed in NERO ULTRA edition i think NERO 7.8 or something.. and plus you need Genuine and original products if you want to critisize it. if you use pirated OS and then tend to critisize its wrong.

and adobe is not a part of M$, then all softwares for me works on VISTA, and Xp is also M$ product , which you are praising.. its good.. but dont take VISTA so lightly when you dont know anything about it.

why dont you use dreamweaver 8 or CS3, or you are still using a pirated copy of your OLD software... dude , you must think before you praise or critisize a thing..

[Zeeshan Quireshi]

Originally Posted by Desi-Tek.com

even adobe macromedia dreamweaver mx 2004 is not compatible with vista i even faced problem with nero. u need to open nero by right clicking on it and selecting admin other wise it does not write cd though it has benn fixed in latest version of nero. But dreamweaver problem still exist. I used vist(t)a for 3 days than i returned back to xp

well mate Dreamweaver 8 is old , they already came out with Dreamweaver 8 in 2005 which works perfectly fine in Vista also now there's Dreamweaver CS3 out too with full vista compatibility

nero didn't work coz vista prevented it from accessing hardware directly without admin previlages , if you had gone to RIght Click->properties page of Nero executable then u could hv set it to always run with Admin previlages this feature is better coz it prevents malicious software from directly accessing ur hardware n thus spreading itself .

Originally Posted by aryayush

This is called backward compatibility.

Backward compatibility is that Apps right from the 16 bit Dos era , then Win 3.1 , then 9x n then Win2k/NT apps all work perfectly fine on XP n Vista , u Don't Need an emulator to do that .

Originally Posted by Apple

In June 2005, Jobs announced that the Macintosh platform would be transitioning to Intel x86 microprocessors. Developer documentation of the Rosetta PowerPC emulation layer revealed that applications written for Mac OS 8 or 9 would not run on x86-based Macs. The Classic Environment remains in the PowerPC version of Mac OS X, however x86 versions of OS X do not support Classic.

well , well , well what do we have here ?

Originally Posted by Apple

For some time after the discontinuation of Mac OS 9, Apple sold retail copies of Mac OS 9 for $19.95 to qualified OS X purchasers through the Mac OS 9.2 Fulfillment Program. This was designed to assist those who needed to run Classic applications yet did not own a copy of Mac OS 9.